Re: [gnso-dow123] Final Task Force Report on Whois Services

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

i though i was voting against the process that produced the report  
and not the conclusions in the report or the sending of the report to  
the council (which i understood was going as written including the  
part where it lists the votes for the 2 proposals that wee voted on).

I do not understand what it means for us to be voting on the OPOC  
proposal, I thought that had already been done.

Perhaps I am the only person who is confused, which is quite  
possible.  I thought voting on proposals was done and now we were  
voting on the contents and structure of the report and not re-taking  
a vote on the recommendations.  If we are voting on recommendations,  
what did it mean to not allow a constituency to not change its vote?

In any case, having voted publicly, would i even be able to change my  
vote if i wanted to?

a.



On 7 mar 2007, at 14.53, Jordyn Buchanan wrote:

> Hi Avri:
>
> Just to be clear, we're not voting on the report itself.  We're voting
> on whether or not you support the recommendations contained therein.
> (As indicated in the previous e-mail to Marilyn, this really means
> we're voting on whether or not you support the recommendations
> contained in the OPOC proposal.)
>
> Jordyn
>
> On 3/7/07, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I will no longer argue as the chair has spoken on the content of the
> > vote.
> >
> > I do however, object to the process which led us here and will be
> > voting against the report on that basis.  Specifically at the point
> > at which the special circumstance proposal was made, we deviated from
> > the previous working methods and agreements.  When asked if this was
> > the time to submit other counter proposals that could be discussed, I
> > was informed that we would not be discussing alternate proposals and
> > there was no reason to submit alternate proposals.  Once the Special
> > circumstances proposal was given a weight on a par with the OPOC  the
> > circumstances changed but by then it was too late for alternate
> > proposals to be discussed.  I believe that the process was gamed, and
> > while I have every respect for those who played the game and do not
> > deny them their right to play the game, I personally cannot sanction
> > that game by voting in favor of a report that has been so played.
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > a.
> >
> > On 7 mar 2007, at 14.12, Marilyn Cade wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think that the Marilyn Cade or the Avri/Milton/Wendy
> > > reports can be
> > > in the full body of the report. We only had a brief explanation for
> > > those
> > > two submissions; that didn't equate to a thorough assessment and we
> > > did not
> > > take public comments on those.
> > >
> > > As sad as that made me, of course, as the author of the MCADE
> > > proposal. ;-)
> > >
> > > But it seems to me that Steve's question is where we should focus.
> > >
> > > I had assumed we would be expressing support to OPOC and Special
> > > Circumstances.
> > >
> > > Marilyn Cade
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-
> > > dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On
> > > Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 12:48 PM
> > > To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Final Task Force Report on Whois  
> > Services
> > >
> > > What exactly will we be voting on?
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso- 
> > dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > On Behalf Of Maria Farrell
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 12:39 PM
> > > To: 'Milton Mueller'; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Final Task Force Report on Whois  
> > Services
> > >
> > > Milton,
> > >
> > > This may seem like a non-sequitur, but in the absence of any  
> > guidance
> > > from
> > > the Bylaws, I have to go with the previously stated view of the  
> > task
> > > force
> > > about the relative time allotted to the proposals. A clear decision
> > > was
> > > made
> > > to treat the two sets of proposals differently,no task force member
> > > objected
> > > then or since, and I reflected that decision in the structure of  
> > the
> > > report.
> > > I agree that this is an imperfect mechanism, but I do not expect
> > > that a
> > > task
> > > force straw poll on this issue would yield a different result.
> > >
> > > Unless the task force is likely to collectively change its  
> > approach on
> > > this
> > > within the next hours, then I do not believe that further delay
> > > would be
> > > worthwhile.
> > >
> > > If I do not see on this list a majority of task force members  
> > who wish
> > > to
> > > change the report again, then I will instruct Glen to commence the
> > > Task
> > > Force vote tomorrow morning, 0900 CET.
> > >
> > > As the three days alotted for voting would include non-working days
> > > (i.e.
> > > Thursday, Friday and Saturday), the vote will finish on Monday, 12
> > > March
> > > at
> > > 1700 CET.
> > >
> > > If, on the other hand, a majority of task force members do wish to
> > > change
> > > the report, I would suggest that the task force reconvene in
> > > conference
> > > call
> > > to decide how the report sections should be ordered. I will be
> > > happy to
> > > facilitate such a call.
> > >
> > > All the best, Maria
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@xxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:54 PM
> > > To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Maria Farrell
> > > Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Final Task Force Report on Whois  
> > Services
> > >
> > >>>> "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> 3/6/2007 1:32 PM >>>
> > >> FYI, below is the agreed Task Force summary of the call when the
> > >> status
> > >
> > >> of this proposal was discussed on 18 December, 2006.
> > >> A distinction was made by the chair and agreed by the task force
> > >> about
> > >
> > >> the different status of the OPoC/Special Circumstances  
> > proposals and
> > >> the proposal made by Avri/Milton/Wendy and by  Marilyn.
> > >
> > > Maria, this is a complete non sequitur. We agreed "not to spend
> > > significant
> > > time discussing" our proposal on a specific teleconference
> > > -- but we did discuss it. If the "special circumstances  
> > proposal" is
> > > included in the main body of the report because we discussed it,  
> > then
> > > the
> > > others have to be included too.
> > >
> > >> From a fairness and tidyness standpoint, neither should be in the
> > >> main
> > > body of the report.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >